[12027] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rob Skrobola)
Wed Aug 27 13:49:54 1997
To: Charles Sprickman <spork@inch.com>
cc: Tony Li <tli@juniper.net>, Paul Peterson <paulp@winterlan.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:22:37 -0400.
<Pine.BSF.3.96.970827132145.8391A-100000@shell.inch.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:36:14 -0400
From: Rob Skrobola <rjs@ans.net>
>From: Charles Sprickman <spork@inch.com>
>Subject: Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch?
>Would you be less happy with these boxes if they didn't have "Bay Command
>Console"?
To be more exact- For our purposes, bcc is an absolute necessity.
>And if it weren't available, what would you use?
At the time we made this choice, no other box fulfilled our
needs. Now.. I wouldn't want to speculate publicly. :)
RobS
>Charles
>
>~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
>Charles Sprickman Internet Channel
>INCH System Administration Team (212)243-5200
>spork@inch.com access@inch.com
>
>On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, Rob Skrobola wrote:
>
>> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:02:33 -0400
>> From: Rob Skrobola <rjs@ans.net>
>> To: Tony Li <tli@juniper.net>
>> Cc: Paul Peterson <paulp@winterlan.com>, nanog@merit.edu
>> Subject: Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch?
>>
>> Folks,
>> We have bcn/bln's out there with over 60 bgp peers on a 64Mb
>> ARE. Works fine. Taking in about 63000 pps (170 Mbps) over 6 interfaces
>> with a high of 20k pps when I looked a couple of minutes ago..Not
>> untypical of the 30 bcn's and bln's on our network..
>> So the 4-6 Mb per peer thing is inaccurate. On the way high
>> side.
>> RobS
>>
>>
>>
>> BGP Peers
>> ---------
>>
>> Local Remote Remote Peer Connection BGP Total
>> Address/Port Address/Port AS Mode State Ver Routes
>> --------------------- --------------------- ------ ------- ---------- --- ------
>> ...
>>
>> 64 peers configured.
>>
>>
>> Memory Usage Statistics (Megabytes):
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Slot Total Used Free %Free
>> ---- -------- -------- -------- -----
>> 6 61.67 M 32.82 M 28.84 M 46 %
>>
>>
>>
>> >Subject: Re: perf #s for GRF vs 7500 Re: Anyone Deployed Ascend's GRF IP S witch?
>> >From: Tony Li <tli@juniper.net>
>>
>> >paulp@winterlan.com (Paul Peterson) writes:
>> >
>> >> Bay claims to hold the entire Internet routing table in just 4-6MB RAM
>> >> per BGP peer (I assume this is after convergence). They say that the
>> >> method in which they do this is proprietary. I am just wondering if it
>> >> is possible.....
>> >
>> >That's certainly possible. However, it would be interesting to see how it
>> >scales with the number of peers. You could quickly find yourself needing
>> >>64MB if it's even just linear.
>> >
>> >Tony
>>
>
